Aims – A narrative review of studies on the psychiatrists’ opinion about the information process and the factors that may influence the extent to which patients are informed and involved in the information process. Methods – A literature review, without restrictions of time, was carried out using Medline and Psychlnfo databases. Results – Twenty three studies of interest were identified. The diagnosis of depression, anxiety and substances abuse are comunicated in a high percentage of cases; while the diagnosis of schizophrenia and other psychotic disordes are often concealed to patients. As far as pharmacological treatment is concerned, psychiatrists are more inclined to communicate those side effects which from their point of view are considered as less stressfull for the patient. No studies refer to the comunication of prognosis. The reasons adduced by psychiatrists for informing or not informing regard the etiology and the validity of some psychiatric diagnoses, the cognitive difficulties of patients, worries about stigmatizing or damaging patients. Conclusions – The choice to involve patients in treatment should be made from the prospective of promoting patient's well being rather than to depend on psychiatrists' communication difficulties, prejudices or on a habit of a paternalistic relationship style.

Declaration of Interest: none of the three authors has had any interest or received any form of support, including that from drug companies and honoraria for lectures and consultancies, potentially in conflict with this scientific work

Aims – A narrative review of studies on the information needs of psychiatric patients, the knowledge of their diagnosis and treatment expectations. Methods – A literature review, limited to studies between 1980 to 2003, was carried out using Medline and Psychlnfo databases. Results – Sixty five studies of interest were identified. Less than half of the psychiatric patients know their diagnosis and patients affected by schizophrenia are the least informed. Notions about aetiology and treatment are patchy, and the concept of ‘multifactorial cause’ seems unknown. Little knowledge emerged about drugs and side effects, expecially in the long term. Patients want to be informed, involved in decisions and their treatment programme. They feel that their psychiatrists are more interested in pharmacological aspects than in their personal problems. Conclusions – A better quality of communication, the involvement of patients in decision processes and meeting patients' information needs is necessary to improve therapeutic relationships, to encourage greater compliance with treatment programs and to reduce the stigma of psychiatric illness.

Declaration of Interest: none of the three authors has had any interest or received any form of support, including that from drug companies and honoraria for lectures and consultancies, potentially in conflict with this scientific work.

Aims – Evidence from the literature show that patients affected by psychosis rarely are informed about their diagnosis and/or involved in the decision making process regarding the therapeutic program. The aim of the present study is to investigate psychiatrists' clinical experiences, beliefs and attitudes towards communicating the diagnosis to patients affected by psychosis. Method – Three focus groups were conducted with 28 psychiatrists of different levels of expertise (10 senior psychiatrists and 18 psychiatrists in training), all working at the South-Verona Community-based Mental Health Service. The group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed. The authors derived different thematic categories which were used by two raters to classify all contributions of the psychiatrists. Results – The main themes of interest which emerged were: experience with the communication of the diagnosis of psychosis and main communication strategies used; obstacles and personal difficulties in giving such information. Conclusions – In the psychiatric setting the disclosure of the diagnosis of psychosis implies different clinical and ethical issues and is felt as highly problematic. These findings suggest a need of psychiatrists to involve the psychotic patient in the information giving process in order to learn his/her informative needs which are the starting point for individually tailored information.

The authors have no potential conflict of interest related to the subject of the paper. No economic support has been received for this study.